yes I know you are dummy. but those lines are retarded and as old as christ ridding a dinosaur.Uzique wrote:
It seems even when I format my posts and italicize the parts with large arrows with 'Look! Satire Included!' labels, you fail to recognise it .usmarine wrote:
lulz...bf2s DST punchlines ftw.Uzique wrote:
freedom and liberty "democracy"
I'm being facetious when I talk about your ideals of 'freedom and liberty', they're models of hypocrisy.
Then so has Britain, France, Germany, Japan, China, India and Pakistan. All these countries supply the world with weaponary. Then again, I remember reading here not that long ago, apparently it's the person who pulled the trigger who is ultimately responsible so the supplier can't be blamed.Braddock wrote:
Both Russia and the US have continually interfered in other nation's affairs, picking sides and arming one group against another, since WW2. Thousands and thousands have died as a result of these wars, they both have a lot of blood on their hands if we're being honest.dayarath wrote:
Well I don't really think the US was particulary bad in comparison to Russia really.
First things first: I am a German, living in Germany.Uzique wrote:
Actually I believe the general aim for most of the US examples of installing dictators/democracies wasn't the promotion of freedom and liberty but rather the suppression of Communism and the rising of living standards in your back-yard (e.g. Central America and South America). The USA needs these countries to be reliant on the USA's power, they need these countries to effectively by what colonial Africa was for the Europeans; countries that are near the poverty-line with nothing more developed than agriculture and basic manufacturing industry. They're your sweatshops, and throughout 20th century history whenever a regime that has been favoured by its people has been in power with the aim of bringing the lower-working classes out of poverty, America has swept in with dictatorships and "democracy". Many examples of this.
Now to your post: As I said, the US does the things it does out of self-interest. But I believe that they want to promote democracy and yes, freedom, because that way a hostile country is not longer a great threat and is possibly more US-friendly. And yes, suppressing communism was a goal (and it is now as well). I am merely stating that I think that the US policy to combat communism and other threats is implementing democracy.
Hey, you won't get much argument from me in defence of any imperialist nation. All of these countries you mentioned are equally culpable, the only difference between these countries and the US/USSR is that they aren't as powerful or prominent but their actions are still just as worthy of criticism. I also personally believe that a country must share a certain amount of guilt and blame if it sells weaponry to questionable regimes, whether it be the US selling to Israel, Belgium selling to the former Yugoslavia or China selling to Zimbabwe.M.O.A.B wrote:
Then so has Britain, France, Germany, Japan, China, India and Pakistan. All these countries supply the world with weaponary. Then again, I remember reading here not that long ago, apparently it's the person who pulled the trigger who is ultimately responsible so the supplier can't be blamed.Braddock wrote:
Both Russia and the US have continually interfered in other nation's affairs, picking sides and arming one group against another, since WW2. Thousands and thousands have died as a result of these wars, they both have a lot of blood on their hands if we're being honest.dayarath wrote:
Well I don't really think the US was particulary bad in comparison to Russia really.
Weapon supplying is a bit different from directly having involvement/intervention in foreign affairs though- no? I'd be equally as hopeless as Braddock when it comes to defending the actions of my own country or any other Western state... but please don't use it as some excuse to detract and mitigate the effects of US 'foreign policy' in the 20th century. Just because other countries made the same mistakes and committed the same atrocities in the past, it doesn't make it acceptable for bigger and wiser (history teaches a valuable lesson) countries to do the exact same thing.
Oh and the Sandinista Communist's in Nicuragua were democratically kept in power by the vote and will of the countries people. They actually had great national support and the US knew this. So if US foreign-policy is based around promoting the values of democracy, why were they covertly funding a guerilla army and a campaign of disinformation in order to overthrow the democratically-elected ruling party? You've got to love how the violence caused and the poverty (and in places starvation) caused by the trade embargo eventually forced the people to vote for the US-installed candidate. Free democracy in action huh?
If that's how democracy works, I far prefer the cuddly Soviet bear. At least Russia has a bit of dignity in the way it tramps around the Eastern-European / Middle-Eastern areas killing people, forward comrades!
... You do realize the USA purposefully prolonged the Middle-Eastern conflicts and veto'd just about every peace resolution suggested and every general recommendation made in order to keep the area hostile? Israel was America's foothold in the Middle-East and its resources and wealth, and America knew that it had to keep that situation 'heated' and violent in order for them to fully establish themselves. Israel's value to the United States hinged on the fact that they were dependant on the US; this reliability based on them being "embattled". Not all US foreign policy is based around the peaceful sowing of democratic seeds. It's not always in the interests of US or Western economics to have peaceful democracy all over the world - it's not profitable - and it doesn't always reward the most power or influence.Chrisimo wrote:
But I believe that they want to promote democracy and yes, freedom, because that way a hostile country is not longer a great threat and is possibly more US-friendly. And yes, suppressing communism was a goal (and it is now as well). I am merely stating that I think that the US policy to combat communism and other threats is implementing democracy
Oh and the Sandinista Communist's in Nicuragua were democratically kept in power by the vote and will of the countries people. They actually had great national support and the US knew this. So if US foreign-policy is based around promoting the values of democracy, why were they covertly funding a guerilla army and a campaign of disinformation in order to overthrow the democratically-elected ruling party? You've got to love how the violence caused and the poverty (and in places starvation) caused by the trade embargo eventually forced the people to vote for the US-installed candidate. Free democracy in action huh?
If that's how democracy works, I far prefer the cuddly Soviet bear. At least Russia has a bit of dignity in the way it tramps around the Eastern-European / Middle-Eastern areas killing people, forward comrades!
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-13 05:44:50)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europ … 61105.html
Ceasefire - yeah right. Now reporters on the ground are confirming Russian movements thier lies are becoming evermore transparent. Yes Georgia are to blame for invading South Ossettia and shelling Tskhinvali, but does that make a Russian counter invasion of real Georgia just?
Ceasefire - yeah right. Now reporters on the ground are confirming Russian movements thier lies are becoming evermore transparent. Yes Georgia are to blame for invading South Ossettia and shelling Tskhinvali, but does that make a Russian counter invasion of real Georgia just?
Well, you can't say anything about them taking Gori. I mean, thats the place where stalin was born, putin probably got an erection thinking about going there.
Putinesque interpretation of Stalin's rule. Possibly Putin's 2012 Campaign Slogan?Cruel but successful
Send in the EU peacekeepers asap.